text:
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index
General Discussion & Announcements
View previous topic
View next topic
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:58 am
Post subject: Censurecarter.com
It's about time!
And while we're at it, let's take that Nobel Peace Prize and show Jimmy what he can really do with it.
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:56 am
Post subject: Re: Censurecarter.com
AmirN wrote:
It's about time!
And while we're at it, let's take that Nobel Peace Prize and show Jimmy what he can really do with it.
Back to top
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 11:01 pm
Post subject:
There once was a shmuck traitor named Jimmy
Who considered Yasser his friend, though to him he was just a dhimmi
They both got a bogus Nobel Piss Prize
Now one is dead, and the other still cries
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:28 pm
Post subject:
Well said....
Back to top
Joined: 03 Aug 2004
Posts: 91
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:32 pm
Post subject: The devils' advocate
The devils' advocate
Iran's democrats are furious that former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark is protecting the mullahcracy he helped install
Marinka Peschmann
May 22, 2006
Every passing day brings Iran's totalitarian regime closer to building the bomb. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently announced that Iran "has joined the club of nuclear countries." In February, Britain's Telegraph reported that Tehran's mullahs had issued a fatwa "sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies," overriding prohibitions under sharia law. Meanwhile, on the streets of Tehran, "America Cannot Do a Damn Thing!" slogans are increasingly popular. Middle East expert and author Amir Taheri has written that it's because "Ahmadinejad believes that the Khomeinist revolution needs 'a second breath.'" A revolution "which can only come if the Islamic Republic takes on the U.S. and defeats it once again."
But while the international community struggles to find a non-military solution to heading off Iran's deadly ambitions, the same U.S. politician who helped the Islamists conquer American interests 27 years ago has begun a high-profile campaign to stop Washington from even considering a military one. Lawyer Ramsey Clark, who has defended some of history's greatest monsters over the last few decades (he's currently handling Saddam Hussein's case) is now standing guard for the dictators of Tehran. The motto of his U.S.-based organization, International Action Center: "Stop the war on Iran before it starts!"
Former president Lyndon Johnson's attorney general has said he is soliciting "generous" donations for IAC to buy ads in "major newspapers across the United States," designed to "oppose the drive towards a new war against the people of Iran." According to the IAC's StopWarOnIran.org, since the campaign was launched last February more than 6,000 people have signed the petition, and their supporters have sent more than 200,000 e-mails to U.S. government officials, the UN secretary-general and members of the press. Notable endorsers include British MP George Galloway (who has been accused of profiting from Iraq's corruption of the UN's oil-for-food program), Nobel laureate and playwright Harold Pinter, and U.S. civil rights attorney Lynne Stewart (who is facing 20 years in prison after being convicted of helping her al Qaeda clients plan terrorist attacks). But if Iranians themselves aren't backing Clark's movement, it's because many of them hold him personally responsible for turning their country over to the Islamist fanatics that run it today.
"If Mr. Ramsey Clark is really concerned about Iran, and wants to stop war, he will tell his mullah friends to leave Iran," says Manda Zand Ervin, president of the U.S.-based Alliance of Iranian Women. "Clark helped put them into power. He should also tell his mullah friends that no matter how many Iranians they kill or imprison, the Iranian people want freedom, and he should demand that the regime leave peacefully."
In January 1979, when the Soviet Union endorsed the radical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's plans for a revolution to overthrow U.S.-backed monarch Reza Shah Pahlavi, Clark began attending pro-Khomeini rallies, and held a news conference to announce he'd met the Islamic cleric in Paris. "I have great hope that this revolution will bring social justice to Iranian people," he recalled telling the ayatollah. Clark called on Washington to stay out of the situation and let Iran "determine its own fate." By the end of the month, unrest compelled the shah to flee Iran, allowing Khomeini to seize power and impose Islamist rule.
Months later, when Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took nearly 90 Americans hostage, U.S. president Jimmy Carter sent Clark, along with diplomat William Miller, to Iran to meet with the ayatollah to resolve the crisis. As hostage Bruce Laingen, Washington's chargé d'affaires in Tehran, later recalled: "Here was an opportunity at the highest level to get through to this regime, led by two people who the Iranian revolutionaries regarded, we assumed, and I think rightly so, as friends of the revolution. Ramsey Clark was a clear friend. He had been to Tehran in mid-summer of that year, shortly after I arrived in Tehran, on a visit. He was known as a friend of the revolution."
Still, the mission failed when the ayatollah denied the two men entry into Tehran, refusing to bargain with Carter's administration. Later that year, Clark returned to Tehran--defying a U.S. travel ban--to participate in a conference entitled Crimes of America. The conference was "put on by the regime in Tehran, to publicize and to highlight what they alleged were the kinds of crimes and criminal offences and political wrongs that governments in Washington had committed against Iran," Laingen told a Georgetown University interviewer in 1993. "It struck me as highly inappropriate for someone of that stature to come there to participate in that kind of a conference with that kind of theme."
Twenty-seven years of Islamic rule may have turned the once westernized Iran into a religious police-state and the largest financial supporter of terrorists in the world. But it hasn't changed the mind of the former U.S. attorney general. Clark didn't respond to interview requests for this story, but it's clear that he's still backing the revolutionaries. Not surprising, given that over the last couple of decades as a lawyer, Clark has defended Rwandan and Serbian war criminals, Palestinian terrorists and a Nazi prison guard. Prior to taking the Hussein case, Clark represented Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik now serving a life sentence for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. Clark's IAC was founded in 1992, reportedly with the backing of the quasi-Stalinist World Workers Party, which has historically opposed all U.S. military action, including that in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq.
U.S. bullying. "Iran has submitted to the most intrusive and humiliating inspections, above and beyond what is required by [the] Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty," reads Clark's petition to stop U.S. action against Tehran. He inaccurately suggests there's no evidence that Iran is pursuing a weapons agenda.
In reality, Iran has repeatedly breached International Atomic Energy Agency restrictions, and when IAEA inspectors visited the Natanz nuclear facility in 2003 (the existence of which Tehran had tried to conceal), they found it buried 26 feet underground, protected by eight-foot-thick walls. Inspectors also discovered evidence of unreported, highly enriched uranium, which the IAEA concluded came from Pakistan, home of black market arms dealer A.Q. Khan, believed to be the source of Iran's illegal nuclear materials. If Clark believes Iran's nuclear ambitions are peaceful, he may be the only one. And while average Iranians may not be anxious for war with the U.S. (though some democrats believe it will hasten the end of the mullahcracy), many are furious that Clark is again aiding the regime he helped bring to power 27 years ago--and potentially stymieing the sort of military threat that might be required to disrupt Ahmadinejad's efforts. "The people of Iran want to be free to establish a democracy, have prosperity, and join the international community," says Zand Ervin. "It is long overdue for regime change in Iran."
BinLadin Gives $1 MILLION+ to Carter Center
The breaking news cover story on Canada Free Press about the funding that Jimmy Carter solicited and received from the Bin Laden family. Over $1,000,000 of funding was funneled to the Carter Center, after ex-President Carter personally solicited 10 of Osama Bin Laden's family members for the money.
Canada Free Press broke the story here:
Fox News Channel then invited the Censure Carter Committee's Melanie Morgan to come on and explain the explosive investigation that led to these new reports.
Fox News Channel report here:
We are about to launch a 2nd wave of television ads on national television networks asking Americans to rebuke Carter's efforts in North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and elsewhere.
We are raising the money to air this ad on TV - and we need your help. The more money we raise, the more airtime we can purchase.
In 2004, liberal filmmaker, Michael Moore, maliciously accused President Bush of having supposed close ties to Osama BinLadin.
But Michael Moore, as usual, wasn't telling you the truth.
You see, the BinLadin family does have close ties to an American president, but it isn't George W. Bush they were closest to.
NO, that distinction belongs to disgraced former President, Jimmy Carter.
Bakr BinLadin
An investigation by the Censure Carter Committee into the financing for "The Carter Center" of Atlanta, Georgia (founded by President Carter and his wife to advance his "Blame America First" foreign policies) reveals that over $1,000,000 has been funneled from Bakr M. BinLadin for the Saudi BinLadin Group to the Carter Center.
In fact, an online report accuses former President Carter of meeting with 10 of Osama BinLadin's brothers early in 2000. Carter and his wife, Rosalyn followed up their meeting with a breakfast with Bakr BinLadin in September 2000 and secured the first $200,000 towards the more than $1 MILLION that has since been received by the Carter Center.
If you think this news troubles Michael Moore and his friends in the liberal, anti-war crowd, think again. You see, they're not interested in the truth - they only seem interested in advancing their defeatist political message: "America is almost aways wrong... America is the source of many of the world's problems."
In fact, during the 2004 Democratic National Convention, former President Jimmy Carter hosted Michael Moore in the presidential viewing box, while ex-President Bill Clinton addressed the crowd.
Jimmy Carter hosts Michael Moore
In the Presidential Box at the 2004
Democratic National Convention
So, have you had enough of former President Jimmy Carter and his continued pattern of undermining American national security? Are you sick and tired of seeing him defend every despot, dictator and anti-American terrorist organization under the sun?
Then please - support our efforts at the Censure Jimmy Carter campaign.
We are about to launch a 2nd wave of television ads on national television networks asking Americans to rebuke Carter's efforts in North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and elsewhere.
We are raising the money to air this ad on TV - and we need your help. The more money we raise, the more airtime we can purchase.
A typical spot on CNN or Fox News during the daytime will cost us about $4,000 - $6,000. We must collect the contributions of thousands of people who can make a $25, $50, $100 or $250 contribution.
Or we can make up our goals with fewer people contributing a more generous amount - say $500, $1,000, $2,500 or even the full $4,000 or $6,000 to buy each spot that will be seen by people all across the nation.
No matter what you can afford, please make your contribution now, and help us get the message out:
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:18 pm
Post subject: Censure Carter Committee
From: Censure Carter Committee [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Jimmy Carter's Atrocious Comments
"The U.S. and Israel Stand Alone"
Former President Jimmy Carter is attacking America - again. This time Carter is undermining the United States in an interview to a foreign publication.
In an interview with the German news publication, Der Spiegel, Carter repeatedly criticized the United States, as well as Israel.
CARTER: "...with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon."
You read that right - Carter says Israel was wrong to respond to the attacks against Israel by the terrorist group Hezbollah.
In a previous interview Carter had said that the world community should rally behind Israel's other enemy, the terrorist group Hamas. Carter called for - and succeeded in getting - the United States government to give money to Hamas.
In his recent interview Carter criticized the United States for the war on terrorism.
CARTER: "Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened..."
Shame on you Mr. Carter! How dare you ignore the fact that the United States HAS BEEN directly threatened by Islamic terrorists. They attacked our nation on September 11th, 2001; they attacked our U.S. naval vessel the U.S.S. Cole; they've bombed so many of our embassies around the world it's hard to keep track; they've kidnapped, taken hostage and then murdered American civilians left and right.
But President Carter who appeased the Islamic terrorists during his presidency is now once again undermining the U.S. fight against Islamic terrorism.
And he's doing it in interviews with the foreign press - condemning his own nation to the people of other nations in an attempt to rally world opinion against the United States.
Had enough of Jimmy Carter's shameful conduct?
Then help the Censure Jimmy Carter Committee as we are producing a new television ad that denounces Jimmy Carter's repeated attempts to undermine the U.S. war against terrorism and the missions our troops are serving.
Make a contribution RIGHT HERE so we can produce this new TV ad.
And for everyone who contributes $50 or more, we will send you 2 "Censure Jimmy Carter" bumper stickers.
And if you contribute $120 or more, we'll send you the 2 "Censure Jimmy Carter" bumper stickers AND a "Censure Jimmy Carter" t-shirt.
Above: Jimmy Carter with his friend
Fidel Castro at a baseball game in 2002
Back to top
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:12 pm
Post subject: The World Is Not Enough, Jimmy?
The World Is Not Enough, Jimmy?
Dear Jimmy,
-Wasnt it enough that you led America into a recession in the 70s?
-Wasnt it enough that you helped bring about an energy crisis in the 70s?
-Wasnt it enough that you betrayed your ally, the Shah?
-Wasnt it enough that you helped pull out the rug from under him; the only voice of reason and civility in the Middle East?
-Wasnt it enough that as a consequence you helped give birth to the modern Islamic Terrorism cults that roam in the Middle East?
-Wasnt it enough that you initially compared Khomeini to a saint?
-Wasnt it enough that during your pitiful administration and as a direct result of it, the US was mocked and teased as American hostages were paraded in Iran?
-Wasnt it enough that America said Hell No to you when you ran for a second term?
-Wasnt it enough that you embraced and took up the cause of Terrorist Yasser and the PLO?
-Wasnt it enough that you undermined subsequent administrations by publicly criticizing them to the delight of Americas enemies?
-Wasnt it enough that you, along with your buddy Yasser, helped turn the Noble Piss Prize into what it is by becoming its laureates?
-Wasnt it enough that you have always been, and continue to be a source of embarrassment for the nation of America?....
Now you had to go and be the host of a man who is a murderer, torturer, liar, oppressor, and former tyrannical dictator of Iran. A man who is the sworn enemy of America, Israel, Iran, and the rest of the civilized world. Jimmy, you just couldnt resist outdoing yourself.
So enjoy being his little beeyautch, as you chauffer him between Boston, Chicago, and all of the other cities of Hell in the house of the Great Satan. Hold hands with him, skip form city to city while you both giggle like little girls, all the while trying to top each other by claiming to be the one who screwed Iran the most. Thats a very close contest, and you both must have endless anecdotes about it.
While you are at it, take him by a couple of nuclear sites and volunteer to fill in any technological gaps Iran may have. Its only the hosting thing to do. He may initially decline, but please remember that its only taarof. Insist, and as the good guest that he is, surely he will eventually accept.
I am certain that if you had the ability, you would raise Stalin and Hitler from the dead, just so you could invite them here to the US and act as their host. Sorry, but that power belongs solely to Allah.
Jimmy, I realize that you find Muslim ass to be a warm and cozy place for your head, but consider taking it out of there long enough to see whats going on with the world, and the country that once had the misfortune of calling you its president.
The term Benedict Arnold is currently synonymous with traitor. Soon, Arnolds name will be released from the American psyche, as there is a new contender for the honor. Jimmy, since you wanted to immortalize your name, you must rejoice at this fact.
Greater men have hanged for lesser feats of treason than you.
The screwed up world as it exists is not enough for you Jimmy; you have a talent for screwing it up even more.
Jimmy Carter: Hands down THE worst President EVER.
An Iranian American who knows you screwed up both of his countries
PS - I hope you choke on a peanut, Jimmy.
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage
Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 9:04 pm
Post subject: Carter and Khatami Meeting?
Carter and Khatami Meeting?
October 05, 2006 The Guardian wrote:
Mr Khatami's visit follows last month's trip to the US during which he met former president Jimmy Carter. The trip was bitterly criticised by religious conservatives in Iran and by Jewish groups in the US.
This is the first time I am hearing that Carter met with Khatami. Is this true?
AmirN wrote:
The World Is Not Enough, Jimmy?
Dear Jimmy,
-Wasnt it enough that you led America into a recession in the 70s?
-Wasnt it enough that you helped bring about an energy crisis in the 70s?
-Wasnt it enough that you betrayed your ally, the Shah?
-Wasnt it enough that you helped pull out the rug from under him; the only voice of reason and civility in the Middle East?
-Wasnt it enough that as a consequence you helped give birth to the modern Islamic Terrorism cults that roam in the Middle East?
-Wasnt it enough that you initially compared Khomeini to a saint?
-Wasnt it enough that during your pitiful administration and as a direct result of it, the US was mocked and teased as American hostages were paraded in Iran?
-Wasnt it enough that America said Hell No to you when you ran for a second term?
-Wasnt it enough that you embraced and took up the cause of Terrorist Yasser and the PLO?
-Wasnt it enough that you undermined subsequent administrations by publicly criticizing them to the delight of Americas enemies?
-Wasnt it enough that you, along with your buddy Yasser, helped turn the Noble Piss Prize into what it is by becoming its laureates?
-Wasnt it enough that you have always been, and continue to be a source of embarrassment for the nation of America?....
Now you had to go and be the host of a man who is a murderer, torturer, liar, oppressor, and former tyrannical dictator of Iran. A man who is the sworn enemy of America, Israel, Iran, and the rest of the civilized world. Jimmy, you just couldnt resist outdoing yourself.
So enjoy being his little beeyautch, as you chauffer him between Boston, Chicago, and all of the other cities of Hell in the house of the Great Satan. Hold hands with him, skip form city to city while you both giggle like little girls, all the while trying to top each other by claiming to be the one who screwed Iran the most. Thats a very close contest, and you both must have endless anecdotes about it.
While you are at it, take him by a couple of nuclear sites and volunteer to fill in any technological gaps Iran may have. Its only the hosting thing to do. He may initially decline, but please remember that its only taarof. Insist, and as the good guest that he is, surely he will eventually accept.
I am certain that if you had the ability, you would raise Stalin and Hitler from the dead, just so you could invite them here to the US and act as their host. Sorry, but that power belongs solely to Allah.
Jimmy, I realize that you find Muslim ass to be a warm and cozy place for your head, but consider taking it out of there long enough to see whats going on with the world, and the country that once had the misfortune of calling you its president.
The term Benedict Arnold is currently synonymous with traitor. Soon, Arnolds name will be released from the American psyche, as there is a new contender for the honor. Jimmy, since you wanted to immortalize your name, you must rejoice at this fact.
Greater men have hanged for lesser feats of treason than you.
The screwed up world as it exists is not enough for you Jimmy; you have a talent for screwing it up even more.
Jimmy Carter: Hands down THE worst President EVER.
An Iranian American who knows you screwed up both of his countries
PS - I hope you choke on a peanut, Jimmy.
Back to top
Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:35 pm
Post subject:
From: "sosiran97" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@,
Subject: Jimmy Carter, Admirer of Khomeini, Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:20:04 -0800
Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar
By David Horowitz
December 14, 2006
Even as Islamic Hitlerites gather in Iran to deny the first Holocaust of the Jews and to plot the second, former president Jimmy Carter tours America with a new book that describes Jews as racists and oppressors, and suggests they are also a conspiratorial mafia that intimidates critics, controls Americas media and war policy, and are therefore also the source of Islamic terrorism and the Arabs genocidal campaign to eliminate them from the map of the Middle East.
In other words, Americans beware of the Jew in your midst.
Here is Carters description of the Middle East conflict in his own words, delivered during an interview he gave on National Public Radio during the second day of the Holocaust deniers conference in Teheran:
I have spent a lot of time in Palestine in recent years. The Palestinians have had their own land, first of all, occupied and then confiscated and then colonized. Theyve been excluded from their own gardens and fields, and pastures and churches. They have been severely restrained in their movements. They have to have different kinds of passes to go through different checkpoints inside their own lands on their own roads. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine.They connect these settlements with very nice roads for the Israeli settlers, and then superhighways and so forth going into Jerusalem. Quite often the Palestinians are prevented from even riding on those roads that have been built in their own territory. So this has been in many ways worse than it was in South Africa .
When hundreds of millions of Muslims are calling for the extermination of the Jews of Israel this is more than a lie; it is a blood libel.
It is a lie that Palestinians had their own land, first of all, occupied. This is like saying that Texans had their own land occupied by Hispanics, ignoring the fact that Hispanics were there first. The very word Palestine is a Roman appellation for the people called Philistines, who were not Arabs but red-haired sailors from the Aegean . The Jews were there as well.
In short, first of all the Jews were in the land before the Arabs.
Second of all, the Arabs who inhabited the Palestine Mandate in 1948, at the time of the creation the state of Israel , considered themselves Syrians.
Third, the Palestine Mandate was not created on land taken from the Syrians or the Arabs. It was taken from the Turks.
It was not taken from the Turks by the Jews, but by the British and the French. They took it because Turkey sided with Germany in the First World War and, of course, lost. The Turkish empire had ruled the entire region including Syrian, Lebanon , Iraq and Jordan for four hundred years before Syria , Lebanon , Iraq and Jordan were artificially created by the English and the French. Jordan a state whose majority is Palestinian occupies 80% of the Palestine Mandate.
So it is a preposterous lie to say that the Palestinians had their own land and that it was occupied by the Jews.
Fourth, the individual plots of land that Jews now own were in the first instance bought from the Arabs who regarded themselves as Syrians and who lived in the area of Israel . The only property that was confiscated was confiscated as a spoil of the aggressive war that five Arab states waged against Israel from the day of its birth. Five Arab armies invaded Israel , a sovereign state, with the declared intent of pushing the Jews into the sea. The cry today of the Muslim majority in the Middle East is to liberate Palestine from the river to the sea. In other words push the Jews into the sea.
By the standards of occupation and legitimacy Jimmy Carter invokes, Israel has more legitimacy as a Jewish state than Texas does as an American state, rather than a Mexican province.
The fifth Jimmy Carter lie in this lone Jimmy Carter sentence is the claim that the Jews have colonized anything. The Israelis have built more than 200 settlements inside Palestine .
Why is it wrong of the Jews to live in the West Bank ? (The 7000 Jews of Gaza, of course, have already been expunged as result of the Arabs genocidal hate.) Why cant Jews have settlements in the West Bank ?
The answer is because the Palestinians Arabs are filled with a racist and theocratic hate towards the Jews. They cant tolerate a non-Muslim, non-Arab people --however small a minority -- living in their midst. (The 7000 Jews of Gaza out of a population of 1.2 million were law-abiding and peaceful and created a horticultural industry that produced ten percent of Gaza s gross national product. But they were Jews. And that was intolerable to Palestine s Nazis. So they had to be removed.)
Contrast Carters attack on Jews living in the West bank as colonizers who must be expelled with the fact that more than a million Arabs live in Israel, where Israel provides them with more rights including the right to vote and elect Arab members of Israels government than any Arab who lives in any Arab state in the Middle East.
There is indeed a wall now between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. But it is not a wall to keep Arabs out of Israel because they are Arab, as Carter maliciously maintains. There are more than a million Arabs living in Israel . There are indeed checkpoints in the West Bank and into Israel and obstacles to Palestinians crossing them. But this is not because the Israelis discriminate against Palestinians because they are Muslims or Arabs.
It is because too many Palestinians have shown themselves to be bloodthirsty, murderers who have been indoctrinated by their religious leaders and their government to believe in a sick Islamic fantasy that it is their Muslim duty to kill Jews by blowing themselves up; and that, if they do so, they will go to heaven along with 70 members of their family; and, that, if they are lucky enough to be male they will be rewarded by 72 virgins on the other side.
On this side they will be regarded as martyrs and saints and honored by their government. Sixty-percent of Palestinians support suicide bombing and this sick, genocidal agenda which is shared by all members of the Palestinians democratically elected government to kill the Jews.
To ignore these facts and to invert them, as Jimmy Carter does, is to mark yourself as a moral defective.
To take on as a mission the spreading of lies that enable Islamic Nazis to carry out their final solution is the epitome of the evil that America s fifth column left and its reprehensible ex-President represent in our time.
David Horowitz is the author of numerous books including an autobiography, Radical Son, which has been described as the first great autobiography of his generation. It chronicles his odyssey from radical activism in the 60s to his current position as the head of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and who one journalist has called "the left's most articulate nemesis." His book, The Art of Political War was described by White House political strategist Karl Rove as The perfect guide to winning on the political battlefield. Left Illusions is an anthology of 40 years of his writings. His latest books are The Professors, which documents the debasement of the academic curriculum by tenured leftists and The Shadow Party, which describes the radical left's control of the Democratic Party's electoral machine. Click here to read more about David.
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:43 pm
Post subject: Jimmy Carter: A Weak, Ineffectual President
Jimmy Carter: A Weak, Ineffectual President And An Embarrassing And Dishonest Ex-President
By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
January 16, 2007 - If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in Americas history.
Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carters four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged human rights violations.
As a result of Carters withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.
One of Khomeinis henchmen at the time is now the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was a rabid college student who helped organize the storming of the American Embassy on November 4. He was joined in this attack by 400 Iranians wielding sticks and chains. They invaded the embassy in Tehran and held the embassy personnel until January 1981. Ahmadinejad served as a liaison between the hostage-takers and Ali Khamenei, who currently serves as Irans Supreme (spiritual) Leader.
By subverting the pro-Western Shah, Jimmy Carter gave us Islamic radicalism in Iran and a dangerous nuclear threat. Within a year after Khomeini seized power in Iran, it was at war with Iraq. More than 500,000 died in this war. These people died because of Carters personal weakness and his outright subversion of the Shah.
In addition, the Soviet Union recognized the weakness of Carter and invaded Afghanistan. In an attempt to protect the Afghans from Soviet oppression, America helped the Mullahs fight back. One of those Muslim leaders was Osama Bin Laden. Carter can be indirectly linked to the empowerment of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Now, the ex-President is in the news again. This time its about his anti-Israel book, probable plagiarism and the resignation of 14 Carter Center leaders over his pro-Islamic terrorist comments. They have resigned over concern about lies and distortions in his book. In addition, former Ambassador Dennis Ross is also concerned that Carter ripped off maps that he had created and never credited him in the book. Ross is calling for a correction and attribution.
The 14 Carter Center officials who resigned sent a joint letter to Carter. In it, they said: We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support.
But, wait. Theres more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed, but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and inclusive Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.
They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts. Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President. And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as do not commit adultery, and do not lie.
Carter and Clinton are the perfect pair for subverting Baptists because both of them have difficulty telling the truth. The world would be better off if both of them kept their mouths shut, but this is unlikely to happen. Both are ego-driven and cant stand to be out of the limelighteven if its negative publicity.
Im afraid were going to be enduring their underhanded activities for years to come. Lets pray that they fail in all of their efforts.
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:40 pm
Post subject: Carter's Appease Prize
Carter's Appease Prize
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 16, 2002
JIMMY CARTER on Friday won the Nobel Peace Prize that he had lobbied for relentlessly for more than 20 years. (This column has seen no reports that Mr. Carter, 78, hired the two Norwegian public relations firms paid by Americas only other living former Democratic President Bill Clinton to privately lobby committee members to give Clinton the $1 million Peace Prize.)
Mr. Carters prize and the statements by the Nobel Peace Prize committee chairman have caused widespread controversy and disgust, as we shall recount in this column. But a bigger issue has largely been ignored whether the supposedly-idealistic-if-incompetent Jimmy Carter should be regarded as a man of peace at all, or as a man responsible for mass murder and todays climate of terrorism.
If we judge a tree by its fruits, then we must judge Mr. Carters four years in the Oval Office by the toxic fruit it produced and seeds of violence it sowed that continue to poison our world.
Jimmy Carter has on his hands the blood of more than 600,000 people at least as many as died in Americas Civil War. Among recent consequences of Jimmy Carters arrogance and stupidity are the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the Pentagon and World Trade Center that murdered more than 3,000 Americans.
Lets map a few of the milestones on Jimmy Carters road to this hell, a road paved with his good intentions (which may or may not be as noble as he would have us believe).
Jimmy Carter, upon taking office in 1977, declared that advancing human rights was among his highest priorities. Because Americas ally the Shah of Iran was torturing approximately 3,000 prisoners (many of them agents for Irans bordering neighbor the Soviet Union), Mr. Carter ostentatiously withdrew U.S. support from the Shah.
Mr. Carter ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop paying $4 million per year in bribes to the religious Mullahs to tone down their rhetoric. Many of these Muslim leaders disliked the Shah not because he was dictatorial but because the Shah was secular, pro-Western, and expanding the rights and equality of women.
Because Mr. Carter withdrew U.S. support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah was toppled. Did this liberate the 3,000 political prisoners? No. The new theocratic dictatorship of the Ayatollah Khomeini put many of these godless Communists up against walls alongside more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians and liquidated them all by firing squads. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. And, of course, American diplomats were taken hostage.
The Soviet Union, seeing President Carters indecisiveness and incompetence, took advantage of the chaos he had caused to invade Irans eastern neighbor Afghanistan, a power grab calculated to open the way for eventual Soviet takeovers in Iran and pro-Western Pakistan.Jimmy Carters manly response to this outrageous Soviet aggression was to withdraw our athletes from the 1980 Olympics so that, as in Afghanistan, the Soviets could win without our opposition.
The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower (by U.S. Stinger missiles supplied by Mr. Carters successor, the decisive Nobel Peace Prize-deserving President Ronald Reagan) radicalized and trained in the ways of sabotage many Muslim zealots, including Osama bin Laden.
Within a year of the Shahs ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War. Just as the U.S. had sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, in this war the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein to quarantine Islamist fanaticisms contagious potential to infect a fifth of the worlds population.
The Iran-Iraq War would never have occurred had Jimmy Carter not toppled the Shah. This conflict cost the two nations more than 500,000 lives, including thousands of Iranians killed by Saddam Husseins use of chemical weapons.
This costly war encouraged Hussein to acquire an arsenal capable of stopping future human wave invasion by his much more populous neighbor Iran. It also laid the groundwork that in 1990 led to Husseins invasion of Kuwait and, months later, to Desert Storm. One reason that during that war the U.S. did not depose Saddam Hussein was concern that the resulting power vacuum would be filled by Irans Ayatollahs.
To summarize, we have Jimmy Carter to thank for more than 600,000 deaths, Irans rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraqs Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.
Does this sound like the handiwork of someone who deserves the Nobel Peace Prize?
But I hear you say Lowell, Jimmy Carter didnt mean for all these things to happen. He merely wanted to free 3,000 political prisoners and advance human rights. He may be inept, but he meant well.
If Jimmy Carter were consistently idealistic this might seem plausible. We could reduce the charge against him from murdering 600,000 people to the negligent manslaughter of 600,000 through his stupidity and incompetence.
But two things weigh against such exoneration. The first is that Jimmy Carter has never shown remorse, taken responsibility or even acknowledged that his shortsighted simple-minded policies led to these horrors which are human rights violations many magnitudes greater than anything the Shah of Iran ever came close to committing.
The second is that only months ago Jimmy Carter was in Havana kissing Marxist dictator Fidel Castro on the lips and giving propaganda aid and comfort to this mass murderer who had far, far more than 3,000 political prisoners at the time of Carters visit. (Fidel, of course, applauded his comrade Jimmys Peace Prize.)
In his world travels since his 1980 removal from office by American voters, editorialized even the liberal Washington Post, Jimmy Carters willingness to engage with any dictator, no matter how odious, has at times been discomfiting.
What the Post failed to mention is that Jimmy Carter embraces only Marxist, anti-Semitic and anti-American dictators, such as Venezuelas Marxist thug Hugo Chavez who uses brownshirt street gangs to murder citizens who dare to rally against him.
Too bad for the Shah of Iran that he was pro-American and, during Arab oil embargoes, the chief oil supplier to Israel. If the Shah had instead been a Marxist friend of the Soviet Union and renamed his nation the Peoples Socialist Republic of Iran, Jimmy Carter would instantly have ceased all criticism of the Shahs political prisoners and other human rights violations. Jimmy Carter has a very selective, pro-socialist definition of human rights.
Lets be frank. If President Jimmy Carter had been a secret Soviet agent he could scarcely have done more to harm America than he did as a Leftist idealist. His every effort since being thrown out by the American people has also been to harm our nations friends and give aid and comfort to Americas enemies.
During his first term Jimmy Carter destroyed half the life savings of every American in what should be remembered as the greatest act of theft in human history. When he took office every dollar in your life savings was worth one dollar. When Carter left office after helping cause the highest inflation since the Civil War, every dollar had lost more than half its value, its purchasing power.
At its recent political conventions even his own Democratic Party has kept its former President Carter and his pictures away from stage center, making him virtually a non-person so as not to remind Americans that this worst, smallest and most embarrassing President in our history is a Democrat.
Had Jimmy Carter won another four-year term in 1980, the American economy would probably have been destroyed. Economies run on confidence, and Jimmy Carters example of malaise, weakness, incompetence, fear and retreat were destroying confidence in America both at home and abroad.
Mr. Carter gutted Americas national defense and our terrorist-fighting intelligence community. He personally overthrew our and Israels strongest ally in the Persian Gulf. He schemed, as Toronto Sun columnist Peter Worthington wrote on October 12, to unilaterally withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea, stopping only when his plans came to light. His weakness encouraged the Soviet Union to run amok, from Afghanistan to Angola (with Cuban surrogate troops).
Had Jimmy Carter won another term as President in 1980, the Soviet Union would probably have won the Cold War .because Mr. Carter would have thrown the game.
We must never forget that before he could defeat the Soviet Union and send it into the garbage disposal of history, Ronald Reagan had to defeat another major de facto threat to Americas health and survival, Jimmy Carter.
The Nobel Peace Prize committee, however, credited Mr. Carter with one major accomplishment brokering the 1978 Middle East Peace agreements between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize but Jimmy Carter, wrote Associated Press reporter Doug Mellgren, was left out due to a technicality he was not nominated in time.
But is this true, thereby making Carters 2002 Peace Prize the mere correction of a past oversight? Both Sadat and Begin were courageous statesmen who risked much to make this peace agreement. Begin angered his own political base by returning the battle-won Sinai to Egypt. Sadat, as he knew likely, would be assassinated for making peace with Israel. By comparison Jimmy Carter risked nothing and did almost nothing, except serve beverages and snacks to two great statesmen who had come to Camp David already determined to make peace.
Why should the Nobel committee have diluted and cheapened its 1978 Peace Prize by awarding a third of it to the guy who merely supplied the meeting place and little more? Should we honor as a great peacemaker the guy who lent his house at Appomattox for the surrender that ended the Civil War? Should Christians today include in their worship the person who lent Joseph and Mary the stable at Bethlehem? Jimmy Carter was not nominated for the 1978 Peace Prize for an obvious reason: nobody except Jimmy himself thought he deserved it.
And apparently the five members of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Committee scarcely thought Carter deserved it this year. Honoring Carter, said Committee chairman Gunnar Berge, should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [Bush] administration has taken. Its a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.
A kick in the leg, reported Reuters journalist Alister Doyle, is a Norwegian phrase meaning a slap in the face. So the prize was intended not to honor Jimmy Carter so much as to insult and slap in the face the current American President George W. Bush for not following Carters policies of weakness, vacillation, and appeasement towards Leftist and other anti-American forces in the world. It should not be called a peace prize, opined the Wall Street Journals James Taranto, but The Nobel Appeasement Prize.
Gunnar the Red Berge is a far-Left former Labour Party cabinet member whose party in Norways parliament had the largest voice in picking members of the Peace Prize Committee. His term ends this year, and Berge apparently decided to go out with a splash of self-publicity and anti-American ideology.
Fellow Prize committee member Gunnar Staalsett, the Leftist Lutheran Bishop of Oslo, loudly applauded Berge. Last spring Staalsett told reporters that he wished the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres could be withdrawn -- not the part awarded to Arafat but the portion given to Peres. Concerning the Carter Peace Prize and word that it was given to denigrate President George W. Bushs pro-Israel, anti-Iraq policies, editorialized the otherwise-liberal New York Daily News, Excuse us if we detect a whiff of anti-Semitism wafting from Oslo. It wouldnt be the first time, Norwegian Nazis having happily collaborated with Hitler.
Knowing that he was awarded the Peace Prize not out of merit so much as by way of making ideological war against his own nations elected President and a majority of the American people, Jimmy Carter has already proudly said he will accept it and the $1 million.
Jimmy Carter by refusing to refuse this tainted prize makes himself an accomplice to, and collaborator with, an act of ideological warfare against the American people and our elected government. This warfare is also aimed at both Republican and Democrat lawmakers who just voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, a resolution Carter says he would have voted against. But Jimmy Carter has taken the enemys side many, many times before against America. No wonder the envious, America-hating Euro-Left loves him.
But if in this Orwellian double-speak world the Peace Prize (endowed by the war-profiteer creator of dynamite Alfred Nobel) is itself now used as a weapon of war, should this increasingly-surreal prize be scrapped?
Yes, argues Wall Street Journal writer Tunku Varadarajan, who proposes replacing it with a more honest and salutary Nobel Most Evil Award. Imagine the debate each year, he writes. Will [the winner] be Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Il? This is the award Jimmy Carter deserves to win.
Back to top
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:46 pm
Post subject: Before and After Islamic Fascist Occupiers Of Iran By Carter
Before and After Islamic Fascist Occupiers Of Iran By Carter and EU3 Video:
CAN YOU HEAR ME Video?
Iran Viva Pahlavi Diba Dynasty
Back to top
Joined: 09 Oct 2007
Posts: 23
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:36 am
Post subject:
Forward this to minute 2.05 and see what Carter says about Shah.
Look at his face while he is being asked the question. How uneasy he feels.
He knows inside his heart with his betrayal to Shah he has created a monster of a new regime. And yet he has the guts to talk about his human rights achievements a minute later.
he also admits so easily how "quick" they have established new relations with current Iranian regime inside USA??? Is that something he should be proud of? I dont get it....
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index
General Discussion & Announcements
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
[Main Forums]
News Briefs & Discussion
General Discussion & Announcements
Free Iran Activist Disobedience Manuals & Information
Noteworthy Discussion Threads
Philosophy and Religion
Animal Rights
Freedom Songs & Video (ALL MULTIMEDIA)
Free Iran Real Cases Mock Trials
FREE All Political Prisoners NOW
Important Interviews (Radio, TV, and Publication)
The Voice of Ambassador Hashem Hakimi
Site Announcements!
HEAR IT FIRST: Persian - English Breaking & ActivistChat.com Columnists
The Voice of Dr. Etebar
THE FREE THINKERS OF IRAN (Draft 1)
Iranian Uprising 2004
Freedom Software
Voting Booth (Polls)
Cox & Forkum: Editorial Cartoons
Illustrations, Cartoons & Artwork
Victims Of The Regime
Americans Who Strongly Support Iranian People!
Islamic Regime Censorship[Discussion]
[FREE Iran Movement Forum]
18 Tir Help Desk, Discussion & Coordination (BREAKING NEWS)
[Iranian Culture]
HAPPY NOWRUZ PERSIAN NEW YEAR to Over 300 Million People
The Greatest Liberator
It's "Persian" Gulf Stupid! (NOT Arabian)
Daily words from the Master..
The Poetry
Open Public Forum For Iranian Renaissance
Save the Archeological Sites In Iran
Save 7000 Years Heritage & Save the Archeological Sites of Pasargad
Iranian Gift Reviews
Product Review of Free-Iran Gifts and Services
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
You could pay double the price for an ill-fitting jersey elsewhere, or you could wear this Women's Kitty-Corn Unicorn Fun Cycling Jersey that makes other cyclists take a second look and fit your body shape.
Our jerseys are designed with the help of you, and the passionate cyclists right here in the OCG offices.
Do you have an idea of your own? Make sure you reply to the email we send you asking for your suggestions after your purchase.
We want you to love your new gear, so we promise a no-questions-asked exchange policy, easy returns, free shipping worldwide and real-person service.
Add this to your cart now and join us on our mission to make cycling apparel affordable again.
Women's Kitty-Corn Unicorn Fun Cycling Jersey Features
- Collar: Zippable O-Neck Collar
- Gender: Women's Cycling Jersey
- Fit: USA Race Fit, please check sizing charts
- Fabric: Quick-Dry Moisture Wicking Polyester
- Pockets: Three Reinforced Stitched Back Pockets
- Zipper: Full-Length Hidden Zip
- Gripper: Silicone Gripper to avoid unwanted riding with full pockets
- Features: Quick-Dry, Anti-Wrinkle, Pre-Shrunk, Anti-Pilling
- Printing: Full sublimation printing with Italian, never-fade ink to ensure long-lasting, vibrant designs
- Care: Machine Wash 20-30C. Do not dry clean.
I wear a size L in a USA T-Shirt size, what size should I buy?
All the gear here at Online Cycling Gear fits closest to a standard USA club fit.
Cycling apparel does typically fit a size smaller than casual wear and T-Shirts, so for a looser fit, it would be best to order a size up from your typical US T-Shirt size.
To help with sizing, every listing has a sizing chart to guide you on the best size (look for the SIZING CHART link on each product listing above the size selection).
Generally, the larger you are, the bigger step up in size you will want to make. If you find yourself in between sizes, it is usually best to choose the larger of the two sizes.
If manually measuring and your stomach is bigger than your chest, use your stomach measurement instead (don't worry, we are the last to judge!).
Can I return an item if I choose the wrong size?
Yes absolutely! We offer a no questions asked returns and generous exchange policy on your order (we get it, sizing on the internet is hard). For the full returns process and the latest exchange information, check our dedicated returns center that lets us track the process the whole way.
How long does shipping take?
Free shipping usually takes between between 6 and 10 days from the time of dispatch and is delivered via Local Post (USPS, Royal Mail, Australia Post etc.)
Paid Express post takes between 2-5 days, and is delivered via courier (Fedex, DHL). Express post is available to the North America, Europe, Australia and the UK.
To see a full estimate of shipping times and options across all regions, refer to our extensive list on our Shipping & Delivery page.
Can I request an exchange?
If for any reason you would like to exchange your product, perhaps for a different style, size or color, you will need to follow the returns process in our returns center so we can arrange the exchange for you or issue you a refund. More information on the exchange process and latest policy can be found in our returns policy page.
How do you ship packages?
The order process follows these steps:
All orders are checked against an independent service for risk of fraud before payment verification is completed. This is done with an hour of order placement.
Orders are processed and if we don't have the item in our batch of local stock, it is sent either directly to our global warehouse for packing and sending (1-2 business days processing time), or to our dedicated factory for manufacturing and dispatch if an item is not already stocked (3-5 business days processing time).
Note public holidays and peak seasons (Christmas, Black Friday) may add a day to these times. Shipping estimates during checkout are accurate as per the day ordered.
Free Shipping
Free Shipping Time
|United States, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Macao, United Kingdom
|Austria, Bahrain, China, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand
|Singapore, Taiwan
|Chile, Lithuania, Norway, Rest of Europe, South Korea, Ukraine
|Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Russia, Mexico and most of South America
|South Africa
Free Shipping Not Available
|All Other Countries
- It can take a few days following order shipment before the tracking number becomes active in tracking providers systems. If the information has not appeared on the tracking website, please try again later.
- Free gift promotions may fall outside of these delivery times and will usually ship separately to the main order.
Express Shipping
Shipping Time
|United States
|United Kingdom, Ireland & Rest of Europe
|Asia, Africa & South America
|Unavailable at this time
- We aim to process in-stock orders within 72 hours (not including holidays and Sunday's) at which point shipping time estimates begin.
- All estimated/typical delivery time are derived from real-world data collected from past orders. They are approximate times for reference only.
- Shipping times will be affected by national holidays; manufacturers and couriers will limit their operations at these times. This is outside our control. Normal service resumes immediately after each holiday.
Do you provide tracking information?
Yes, you will automatically receive an email once your order ships that contain your tracking information as well as updates as your orders tracking status changes.
If you haven't received tracking info within 5 days, please contact us via our contact page.
My tracking says "no information available at the moment"
This is normal. For most shipping companies, it will take between 2-4 business days for the tracking information to update on their system.
If your order was dispatched more than five business days ago and there is still no information on your tracking number, please contact us and we will chase it up for you.
Will my items be sent in one package?
We will always endeavor to minimize the packaging needed for shipping.
The majority of our items are shipped from our single warehouse, though some items introduced on a trial basis or in partnership with other companies may ship separately.
On some orders, we will ask our manufacturer to split the packaging to reduce the risk of customs or import charges being applied to the order.
On occasion, one item of an order may take longer to make, is temporarily out of stock or requires a different class of packaging.
In this case, we will ship the available item immediately, and ship the remaining items separately as to not hold up the entire order.
If you have any other questions, please contact us via our contact page and we will do everything we can to help you out.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dr. Grumpy: "Okay. Are you on medication for anything?"
Mr. Sugar: "I take Metformin, Actos, and Insulin."
A Blog detailing the insanity of my medical practice and the stupidity of everyday life.
Had a lady come in with a fresh scar from a CABG. She had no idea there was anything wrong with her heart! Denial is real!
Time for some patient teaching ?
I hear this ALL the time, usually from people who insist that diet & exercise are the "only" way to treat diabetes.
Sometimes it's the blood pressure, though. "I don't have high blood pressure." What meds do you take? "I'm on Zestoretic." What for? "I dunno, my doctor told me to take it."
"I dunno why I take this, my doctor told me to do it" is, I think, a classic line from a murder mystery. "Nobody knows why Mr Higgenbothum was taking the medication in the bottle, he only said, 'My doctor gave it to me'."
I get this all the time:
ME: So you have hypertension?
Patient: Not anymore.
ME: So why do you take lisinopril?
Patient: Well, I take the pills, so now I don't have high blood pressure anymore.
I don't want to be off topic, but I dreamt of THE REHABILATATOR, last night. I think it was because I consumed an entire box of GS Cookie Samoas yesterday. I think I need diet and exercise.
I'm a phlebotomist, you should hear what they tell us, we always say did you tell the doctor? They always say no. They want to know why they don't get better! If they ever develop a blood test for common sense I'm sure 90% would fail it!
www.lovelypinkdiva.com
I needed that this morning...badly! Thanks
Cause, meet Effect...
Y'all play nice now, ya hear?
He takes those for his Metformin, Actos and Insulin deficiencies...not for diabetes!
In the hospital last week I told the respiratory therapist that my CPAP at home was titrated to 9. She almost hugged me and moved me to the top of the class. How do people not know these things? Do I have the only doctors on the planet who explain things?
Man: "I want to report my car stolen."
Cop: "Is it a 2-door or a 4-door?"
Man: "2-door."
Cop: "So, like a coupe?"
Man: "No, a family car. 2 doors on one side and 2 doors on the other."
Swear to God.....
He just takes the insulin to fit in with other diabetics.... duh!!!
I hear this from lots of people that should have diabetes secondary to Cushing's Disease.
random person: But I don't have diabetes!
Me:Really? What was your last HbA1c?
random person: I looked it up, it's 8.7
Me: I think you need to talk to your doctor again. /headdesk
Last weekend:
Me: do you have a medical history? any past surgeries, hospital admissions, or diagnoses?
Pt: No.
Me: I'm just going to take a look through these meds... oh!... what are you on dilaudid for?
Pt: oh, my pancreatic cancer.
Me: what are you on these antibiotics for?
Pt: I had a piece of my bowel removed a few weeks ago, they put me on them after surgery.
Me: oooooookay, so you're also on metoprolol... annnnd insulin.... annnnnnd lipitor...
Saw your tweet, I hope Marie is OK.
I now first ask which medicines the patients take, THEN what conditions they are treated for. I get some really interesting explanations for why they are taking antihyperensives, coumadin, insulin for their cured issues.
Wow, totaly feel better. I thought "stupid" patients were stalking me. Paranoia is a terrible thing in the ER. :)
A woman once told me that she was on methadone for "pain control." She really meant "control of addiction to pain medication," but, you know, semantics.
Well, at least he isn't let life interfere with his diabetes control
I remember an visit I made to the ER last year. (kidney stones) They asked me if I had brought all my medications with me and I said no but that I could list them. The nurse rolled her eyes and in a somewhat patronizing tone of voice, told me she needed exact information. I sat there and listed every drug by name, what it was prescribed for, the dosage and how frequently I had to take it. When I was done, she actually apologized for her attitude. (Kudos to her for doing that!) Told me that people usually say "I take that blue pill every morning" or some such nonsense. I honestly can NOT wrap my mind around putting a medication in my body without knowing exactly what it is and what it does. People like your patient in this story scare me.
Patient sitting on stretcher, weighing aleast 150lbs more than they should.
Me "Any history of diabetes?"
Patient "Borderline. I have borderline diabetes."
Me "So what does your blood sugar usually run?"
Patient "I never check that. It's diet controlled."
Yeah, right. Nothing is that diet was under control. And when some wiseass thought we should limit elective procedures to patients with a glucose of less than 350, I wanted to say "Could you redesign the protocol for MY patient population?"
Tee - "I honestly can NOT wrap my mind around putting a medication in my body without knowing exactly what it is and what it does."
I'm with you on this. I don't take any medication on a regular basis and avoid it if at all possible; I'd rather suffer through the pain than deal with the side effects.
Years ago I gave my dentist the "third-degree" when he prescribe Tylenol with codeine for me after a root canal. "What is it? What does it do? What are the side affects?" etc.
Dr Grumpy might actually asked Mary to NOT re-scedule me because I would be such a pain about such stuff.
I keep my meds, allergies, and medical history on an Excel spreadsheet (don't have the world's greatest memory). Before any doctor's visit, I print it out (it's 1 page) and give a copy to the MD (or usually the nurse) for my chart.
This is usually greeted with great appreciation. When my radiation oncologist saw it, she immediately said "I want to hire you".
Reply to Annonymous April,7 6:18pm. I've tried that for my husband. MDs here won't take a preprinted sheet. They insist it be written on the form. He takes 11 meds!
To Med student know-it-all (who really is clueless)....
Methadone really IS used to treat pain...It's not just for recovering addicts.
Did you ask Mr. Sugar why he takes all those meds?
Sounds like Mr.Sugar needs a legal name change to Mr.Artificial Sweetener HAHA! Get it?...?...?
Little Calf Creamery. Delicious homemade ice cream and food in Thousand Oaks!


text:
Guidelines for Creating Board Presentations
This page last reviewed December 16, 2013
These guidelines and templates were created to aid ARB staff in producing slides for display in the Board Hearing Room. If you have questions regarding the guidelines or templates, please contact ARB's Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.
- Number of Slides per Presentation:
- One slide per minute. Allot two minutes for slides with graphs, charts, tables or graphics that need more explanation. Rule of thumb: # minutes - 10% then round conservatively. i.e. 30 min - (10%) = 30 - 3 = 27. Round to 25 slides. 40 minutes = 35 slides.
- Visuals:
- Don't use an "I know you probably can't see this but ..." slide. Your audience will get frustrated and some may get angry. Find another way to package and present the information. Maybe a handout??
- Also, use only good graphics. Select graphics that do not use too many colors. The colors used should be consistent with the colors chosen for the Board Presentation layout. Make sure the images are clear and that they will project well, with sufficient detail, in the Board hearing room. Please use "good" judgement in selecting image sizes and be sure to stay within the Board Presentation Layout margins.
- "Less is more" i.e., the KISS principle. That is, keep things simple.
- Limit the number of scanned images used. These take up memory and cause the hardware to slow down.
- Master Slide:
- Include a footer, slide #, date and divison.
- Title Slide:
- Presentation Title (No more than two lines long), Presenter's name, ARB and Cal/EPA credits, date and location of the presentation.
- Font Types:
- Use simple fonts, i.e. Arial, Times New Roman or Univers (W1). No script fonts please. Don't use more Font Types: than two different fonts in any one presentation. One is preferred.
- Font Sizes:
- Don't use any font size smaller than 18 points.
- Bullets:
- These don't need to be full sentences but they should make sense on their own. Consider the "5 x 5" rule. (No more than five lines per slide / five words per line.)
- Default Lay-Out:
- Don't go outside the default title and text blocks set by your presentation software. These were designed by experts to maximize readability.
- Summary Slide:
- Always use at least one but no more than two summary / conclusion slides.
- Finish Slides:
- Include a "Thank You for your Attention" slide or some other appropriate "finish slide" at the end of the presentation. Include 2 or 3 copies of this slide to avoid inadvertent mouse "clicks" that take you back to the windows screen which looks unprofessional. This way any inadvertent click will simply take you to another finish slide. This looks good and shows that we know how to run the equipment as well as use the software.
- Handouts:
- Use handouts whenever you want to share more detail than you in your best judgement know will project well on a slide. See Appendix C for suggestions on developing and using handouts.
Templates for Producing PowerPoint Slides
You may download this file, then view the information. You may choose to use one or more of the slides as a template for your presentation by editing the contents.
- Layout Specifications for Slides (Electronic or Hard Copy)
- Recommendations for Creating and Using Handouts
- Recommendations for Creating Charts and Graphs


text:
phase one
The magician borrows two playing cards, he rips out their centers and magically makes them link before the spectator's eyes.
phase two
The cards are separated and spectators are allowed to examine the cards in the middle of the effect.
phase three
The magician causes the cards to link again. Finally the cards are separated and given to the spectators.
+ The cards can be borrowed
+ No advanced preparation is required
+ No extra gimmicks
+ The cards can be handed out for examination
20 minutes / MP4 format


text:
Product Information
- Description
An image of original factory product key code will be delivered via email to your provided email address for your convenience. Upon request the keycode and / or the original packaging with Certificate of Authenticity can be mailed to you. SoftwareMedia stores your keycode which can be accessed anytime under My Account in case you ever need to authenticate the purchase of a genuine license. For more info check out our FAQ Page
Looking for Remote Desktop 2012 CALs? Click Here!Windows Server 2012 - 5 User CALs through the Microsoft Open Business Program
Bundle of 5 CALs. If you need additional CALs you may order them separately.
Windows Server 2012 powers many of the worlds' largest datacenters enables small businesses around the world and delivers value to organizations of all sizes in between. Building on this legacy Windows Server 2012 redefines the category delivering hundreds of new features and enhancements spanning virtualization networking storage user experience cloud computing automation and more. Simply put Windows Server 2012 helps you transform your IT operations to reduce costs and deliver a whole new level of business value.
A Server License is required for each operating system environment running Windows Server. A User/Device CAL is required when a user or device is directly or indirectly accessing a Windows server. Additionally if the user or device is accessing or using the terminal services functionality of Windows Server a TS CAL is also required. Bundle of 20 CALs. You can order additional CALs if needed.
- Specifications
Brand Microsoft Product Type Full Version License Package Type License Edition User CALs Platform PC License Type User CAL MS Support None
Customers Also Viewed
Core CAL Suite - User CAL & SA - Open Business$384.23
Small Business Server 2003 - 5 User CALs$229.99
Small Business Server 2003 - 20 User CALs$859.99
Small Business Server 2003 - 20 User CALs - Electronic Delivery$799.99


text:
|Sample page 1842 Census Canada West
Library and Archives Canada is pleased to announce that Canadians can now access the Census of Canada West, 1842 as well as the Census of Canada East, 1842 online. In 1841, Upper Canada was renamed Canada West, and Lower Canada became Canada East. These two jurisdictions are now known as the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Each census is partly nominal and contains the names of heads of family, their occupation and the number of residents for each family.Users can search these new databases by the names of heads of family, as well as by geographical information such as district and sub-district names.
I had a search of the Canada West Census and wanted to share with readers that it does not include all of what is now Ontario. Many of the districts are not online, so if you search and don't find your ancestor, it does not necessarily mean he wasn't in Canada West, he may have been living in a district that is not there. You can see the list of Districts covered at Districts and Sub-districts: 1842 Census (Canada West) and Districts and Sub-districts: 1842 Census (Canada East)
Enumerators visited 17 census districts, divided into sub-districts. These units were made up of cities, towns, parishes, villages and townships. Not all returns have survived. The returns for eight districts and 51 sub-districts have been preserved and are searchable online.


text:
I have a log file class that outputs data to a logfile from a program. Well, I have two source files in a project I want to use this log class in. I have a header that is included by both source files. It gives me some a link error saying it was already defined in one of the source files. I was using extern too. I have tried many things, but none work. How do I make it so that I can use the class in both source files?
BTW, I am using MSVC++ if that matters.


text:
Get the highlights in your inbox every week.
Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine argue companies use patents to block competitors in their paper, The Case Against Patents.
Should software patents be abolished?
Subscribe now
We talk a lot about what might be done to fix the problems of software patents, but not much about abolishing them. Abolition seems well-nigh impossible, given current economic and political realities. Serious economists and respected financial institutions don't usually discuss it publicly. Thus, I was surprised when I finally got around to reading a recent working paper published last month under the auspices of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that argued broadly for patent abolition position.
The paper by two distinguished professors of economics, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, is titled The Case Against Patents. Boldrin and Levine review some of the lamentable realities of the U.S. patent system, including the dramatic increases in issuance of patents that block future innovation, and in the quantity and cost of patent litigation. They also point out that patents are often detrimental to consumer welfare, as once-but-no-longer innovative companies use patents to block competitors.
As Boldrin and Levine explain, patents are not really property rights, but rather monopoly rights. The grantees of a government monopoly have strong incentives to seek additional rents to expand their monopoly.
[A] system that at one time served to limit the power of royalty to reward favored individuals with monopolies has become with the passage of time a system that serves primarily to encourage failing monopolists to inhibit competition by blocking innovation.
After reviewing the economic literature, Boldrin and Levine find almost no evidence that patents serve innovation, and conclude that "the patent system taken as a whole does not play an important role in spurring innovation." They acknowledge that in theory it is possible to create a patent system that would foster innovation. They also recognize that there are various possible ways of improving the existing patent system, including "properly interpreting obviousness, requiring genuine disclosure of working methods and an independent invention defense against patent infringement..." But, they ask, "why use a band-aid to staunch a major wound?"
They propose phasing out patents by shortening their duration and otherwise limiting their force. Some of their argument is phrased in the rather dry language of economics, but not this point: "If a well-designed patent system would serve the intended purpose, why recommend abolishing it? Why not, instead, reform it?... Our argument is that it cannot be otherwise: the 'optimal' patent system that a benevolent dictator would design and implement is not of this world and it is pointless to advocate it as, by doing so, one only offers an intellectual fig-leaf to the patent system we actually have, which is horribly broken. It is fine to recommend reform, but, if politics make it impossible to accomplish that reform, if they make it inevitable that we have a patent system it will fail, then abolition—preferably by constitutional means as was the case in Switzerland and the Netherlands prior to the late 19th century—is the proper solution..."
Is this just crazy talk? The inherent social and economic forces that Boldrin and Levine say are bound to cause the system to fail are also bound to defend the system fiercely. But it is certainly provocative.
About the author
Recommended reading
40 Comments
All patents should be abolished. All such systems are unstable. They can't be "fixed". They quickly go to one extreme or the other. They either become so ineffectual that they shouldn't exist or they become so strong that they freeze out any other endeavour. There is no happy medium. Just get rid of them.
PS: Copyrights are the same. Get rid of them too.
> PS: Copyrights are the same. Get rid of them too.
Really? How can authors be remunerated for books, movies or software without copyright?
Copyright is not the same.
Musicians have not make any money from record companies for decades. And, since they have to sell all their rights, every time they play their own music in a concert, they have to pay the record company royalties. Now, publishers are buying up all the rights from authors. Guess what comes next.
Copyrights, like patents, are only for the rich. Get rid of them.
Musicians don't get much when the record company finances their production. When you produce your own (using open source software and less expensive hardware - a good condenser mic is $500, but other stuff is pretty cheap), you can get 50% of gross: http://magnatune.com
And without Copyright protection, you'll sell a few songs and then nobody will buy your music anymore. Just because publishers buy up rights, doesn't mean musicians and other content producers should allow everyone else to trade in their work.
That's a decision for authors to make. Without copyright, you couldn't have open source licensing at all. You would be forcing everyone to publish their work in the public domain or closed source. Artists (including musicians) do not have to sell their rights, they choose to do so. There are those that don't, and copyright protects their investment.
Agreed - but it won't happen. Patents benefit corporations with tons of money to make sure that the system does not change, or or changes in their favor. Look at the repeated extensions of the life of copyright to the point of absurdity.
Curiously patents and copyright are a government created monopoly and enforced government market intervention, that you never see "free market" extremists, "non-interventionists" argue against. There's principles, and then there's money, and money always wins.
My solution (not that it will ever happen) would be to charge corporations (but not natural persons) a fee for the service that government provides. Not just a fee for processing the patent application, but on-going fee for the government provided monopoly. It would be a very high fee that reflects the value of the monopoly. The fee would be waived if the patent/copyright was made public domain. Thus patent trolling would become enormously risky, and patent hoarding would be enormously expensive. Money speaks.
I subscribe to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis publication so I read "The Case Against Patents" when it was published. I agree with Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine on their reasons to abolish software patents. I am neutral on their reasons to abolish all other types of patents because I don't really know enough to evaluate their argument on the other types of patents.
I don't think that Boldrin and Levine's economic reasoning would make much of an impression in a court of law. I submitted an Amicus Curiae to the United States Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit last Thursday and in that brief I only mentioned two of their reasons in passing when I explained what my interest was in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation PTY. LTD.
Steve Stites
I think that some form of copyright protection could be viable, in a sense comparing a software program to a novel. Thus, one could not plagiarize someone else's program, yet you could still be free to use someone else's ideas for your own program.
Look at auto makers. They may come up with some new feature for a model of a car, and wholly expect others to copy it.
What is absolutely abominable is the ability to patents ideas for software, never having created any actual working code.
It's abominable to patent ideas. Ideas belong to the commons. Patent law says so. The American justice system is sick when it allows patent trolls to disregard the law.
Actually, an idea belongs to the person not the commons. What patents do is provide an incentive, a period of monopoly control of his or her idea, for full disclosure. Software should be covered by copyright and not patent law.
The law says ideas belong to the commons. This is not an opinion but a fact. Thinking ideas belong to the person is wishful thinking, not a fact.
It depends on what you mean by ideas. Inventions belong to the inventor see the Constitution, writing belong to the author see the Constitution. The basis of all property law is creation. The creator is the original owner of all creations.
Inventions do not appear in my Constitution.
Sure they do. Patents are property and are covered by the concept of property rights.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The law states explicitly, via patent and copyright, that the idea belongs to the person having the idea. That people can sue in a court of law to protect their rights of ownership proves that point.
Yes ideas belong to the person that has the idea. (As does inventions, writing, arts, software etc).
BUT if that person wants to engage in trade, then he's not the only party. The other party has rights too. The other party brings value. The other party is entitled not to be extorted.
In an idealised free market, competition protects the other party. In monopolies - which is what patents and copyright are - there is nothing to protect the other party.
You have a sick child who will die today if you don't have the drug that I have a monopoly on. My price for the drug? Your house, all your money, and everything you will earn for the rest of your life. Deal? No? child dies. OK?
In the simplest of terms. Remember when you were a kid, and you used to fight over Tonka Trucks and Barbie dolls? Our Moms used to tell us to not be selfish, and to share our toys. Back then, we were fighting over physical objects.
Now we've grown up and instead of fighting over physical objects, we're fighting over intellectual ideas, or virtual objects. These virtual objects cannot be physically held in our hands.
The sad part is, virtual objects can easily be copied and reproduced "shared" at little to no cost. The same cannot be said for physical objects.
Yet here we are, all grown up and still fighting over "intellectual ideas", just like we were some years ago with our Tonka Trucks. Only this time, instead of our Moms being the referee, it's lawyers.
I guess that shows we still have a lot of growing up to do, before we can actually call ourselves a mature species. To me the human race still looks like a bunch of selfish children fighting amongst themselves. The only thing that's changed is the toys we're fighting over.
Every invention should have a shelf life of between 5 - 10 years with no ability to renew in anyway shape or form. Anything and I mean anything after set number of years becomes public domain,, this include inventions, technology, art, music, whatever... nothing should be locked down indefinately. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
Levine and Boldrin are incorrect about patents not being property rights. Patents are not a monopoly and anyone who suggests that they are either does not understand the rights obtained with a patent or is pushing a political agenda. Patents only give the holder the right to exclude, they do not give the holder the right to make something, let alone a right to a market. A monopoly is a right to a market. For more information see http://hallingblog.com/2009/05/31/the-myth-that-patents-are-a-monopoly/
For your comment to be enlightening, you need to explain the (apparently) special legal definition of "property" you have in mind (you did explain "monopoly"). Then recognize, that while lawyers have these special definitions for the same reasons programmers do, it isn't what the authors meant by "property".
That said, I do wish the phrase "intellectual property" would disappear from layman discussions. Even laymen should be able to see that patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all different programs with different problems.
I did not use a special definition of property - I used the term in the way it is used in the law and by the founders of the US.
Monopoly comes from the statute of monopolies. My definition is consistent with that definition and the definition of a state created monopoly. Some economist have broadened the term to encompass all property rights. This is clearly non-sense and is done for political purposes.
The holder of a patent does indeed have a monopoly with regards to that covered in his or her patent as patents provide exclusive control of that covered by the patent for a specific period of time. The word "monopoly" is not limited to access to markets.
If you do not have the right to sell something, you cannot have a monopoly by any meaningful definition of a monopoly.
The concept of monopolies comes from the statute of monopolies and patents for inventions were specifically excluded, because they are not a monopoly.
Monopoly simply means "exclusive control". The person who holds the patent has exclusive control over that which it covers.
Nonsense. All property is about giving the right to exclude others. Property is not a monopoly. Patents allow you to exclude others, but does not mean that you are not excluded by other patents. You do not understand patent law or property rights.
Alright, know-it-all, the word monopoly is defined as "exclusive control" and is extended in the legal system as applying to control over markets, resources, etc. I'm using the term to indicate "exclusive control". What's interesting is that you are intermingling these definitions as you're the one who stated "If you do not have the right to sell something, you cannot have a monopoly by any meaningful definition of a monopoly". You obviously aren't very careful in your use of words, so don't even try to be technical at this point.
So, you've been spouting your opinion for quite a while now as shown here:
Here's an objective fact: you have an opinion about the law. Most lawyers do and they get argued in court. Unlike science, in which empirical data exists, no such thing exists in law, only interpretations. You're entitled to your interpretation but that is all it is, an interpretation. Now I don't subscribe to the Austrian school of economics, but I agree with Stephan Kinsella's argument.
But the patent holder does have the exclusive right to sell something. According to the law:
Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein,shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States."
No they have the right to exclude others - they have the exclusive right to sell title to their property. That is no different than any other property.
It is different than other "property" as the government grants exclusive privilege, allowing the owner to act monopolistically as no one is allowed to compete by default. Of course, people can choose to not license the patent, but there is no competition between the patent owner and others, which is your market-based definition of monopoly.
No any property rights do that.
Not so. I may have exclusive property rights to my chair but a person is not constrained to deal with me with regards to procuring a chair. The market is open, with many sources of chairs. However, the property rights granted by a patent is a monopoly as the market is forced to deal with the person/entity granted the patent or do without it. That is the definition of monopoly.
The fact of the matter is that whether patents are a monopoly is a testable hypothesis. If patents are monopoly then you should see certain outcomes. However, the outcomes are consistent with property rights not monopolies. For More information see http://hallingblog.com/patents-monopoly-or-property-right-a-testable-hyp...
Patents are monopoly that is provable by the fact that patents provide exclusive rights . Without patents, N people come up with a "solution" and must compete with one another to supply that "solution" to customers. With patents, only one person/entity is awarded rights to the "solution". Thus, there is no competition and the market is forced to either deal with the person/entity holding exclusive rights or do without. That is monopoly by definition.
Once again you prove your ignorance. How many patents do you think there are on microprocessors? Can you buy microprocessors Intel, AMD, Motorola, etc? How many patents are there on cars? Can you buy cars from a variety of manufactures?
You do not understand patent law and are speaking from emotion not facts. Patents do not give you the right to do anything. They do give you the right to exclude others from making, selling, importing a device incorporating you invention. You property rights in you chair keep me from selling, from incorporating it into my car, etc. In addition, your property rights in your chair allow you to use you chair. My patent on a CRC encoding scheme does not necessarily allow me to use my invention
Once again, you prove your ignorance. The patent awards exclusive rights to a specific "solution". So, using your example, while there may be a number of processors, only those that license the solution can provide its benefits. CPU manufacturers are forced to deal with a monopoly or not. The patent holder has monopolistic powers with regards to that contained in the patent.
You do not know the definition of a monopoly - you have failed to distinguish if from property rights. You do not know the history monopolies - exclusive right are common to all property right.
Wikipedia defintion In economics, a government-granted monopoly (also called a "de jure monopoly") is a form of coercive monopoly by which a government grants exclusive privilege to a private individual or firm to be the sole provider of a good or service; potential competitors are excluded from the market by law, regulation, or other mechanisms of government enforcement.
SOLE PROVIDER. Patent holders are not the sole provider, they may not even be allowed to provide (build and sell their invention).
Patents are government granted, so this is the correct definition.
I suggest that you look up the definition. A monopoly is exclusivity, which is what a patent provides. A patent holder is the sole provider of whatever that patent covers, however while you may have exclusive rights to your property, such as your chair, others can supply chairs, so there's no exclusivity while there is with regards to what a patent covers. You're flailing.
Many thanks for pointing me in the direction of this important paper. You have summarized the contents admirably, though I would still recommend reading the source, which contains several additional points. In particular I noted that while Boldrin and Levine found no evidence that patents serve the desired purpose of encouraging innovation, they also found no correlation between strengthening patent laws and increased production. The net result has a larger negative impact on social welfare, which supposedly was the beneficiary of patent laws in the first place. The real beneficiaries are only those defending their monopolies, patent lawyers and the "dark" marketeers known as patent trolls.
I was also surprised that the two professors are not alone in their conclusions, as others including Gallini, Jaffe and to a certain extent Lerner agree on the lack of discernible evidence.
Facing an imperative for increased and faster innovation, increased and improved productivity it seems incongruous to try to strengthen the patent system. At the same time it seems almost self defeating to extend US IP influence in trade agreements such as SOPA, ACTA, PIPA and TPP, especially if we encourage other countries to reciprocate deterrents to our own innovation and productivity.
As Boldrin and Levine noted the advocates of strong patent laws tend to come from old and stagnant industries and firms as they seek to protect their once-but-no-longer-innovative IP.
It will be hard to abolish the patent laws, but after reading their arguments there seems little alternative. Yes we can make the adjustments they recommend but if the overall edifice remains the same our competitive edge will be forever dulled.


text: The developer which handles condominium apartment projects specialized in carefully selected locations in the central Tokyo. With comprehensive power from group companies, we support one-stop from leasing management · building management to re-sale. Since its establishment in the year of 1984, it has a track record of supplying about 380 buildings, and currently manages about 33,000 units. We have experiences in overseas sales as well, supporting real estate investment and second-house use of foreign purchasers along with the group company "CLEARTH LIFE TAIWAN".


text:
Click here for the Owner Contact Details
This house is for sale in Westridge. This is a private property sale.Continue reading...
Westridge has the following point of interest, these include Amanzimtoti (28.7km), Durban Int Airport (16.7km), Kings Park Stadium (16.7km), North Beach (7.2km), The Pavillion Centre (6.8km), Umhlanga Rocks (18.1km), Ballito (46.1km), Ushaka Marine World (8.4km), N2 (4.4km) and N3 (1.5km)
This house is situated in a Residential Suburb with 24 hour Patrol
This double storey house floor area was measured at 454m2 and erf size was measured at 939m2.
This house has monthly rates or ground taxes payable to the amount of R 1,054.
If you make an online offer using the Make An Offer button MyRoof will let you know if your offer was successful. To make an offer takes less than a minute. By selling privately the owner can reduce his asking price by as much as 7% (agents commission is up to 7%) and still get the same money in his pocket! That is why buying private property makes so much sense. Feel free to contact us for more information.
Looking to sell your property in Westridge? Via MyRoof, you can market house in a few easy steps, with professional help, every step of the Sell My House way. We've achieved 13 private property sales in Westridge. Because of our superior offering, there is a high demand from people to sell property in Westridge. To market your house online for free, click on the "Sell My Property" tab at the top of the page or the "Sell House" button on the right of this page.
Albert Park , Bayhead , Bulwer (Dbn) , Carrington Heights , Cave Rock , Congella , Durban Central , Wilson Wharf (Esplanade) , Glenmore , Glenwood - DBN , Island View , Maydon Wharf , Umbilo , University , Westridge , Sea View
Essenwood , Greyville , Umgeni Business Park , Morningside - DBN , Musgrave , North Beach , Overport , Point , South Beach , Sparks , Stamford Hill , Sydenham - DBN , Windermere , Springfield - DBN , Berea - DBN
MyRoof uses an online offer system, so why not Make an Offer ?
Contact the seller directly. Access the seller's e-mail address and phone number.
Save this property to your favourites for later review.
We will e-mail you when another property of this kind becomes available in Westridge.
Share this property via e-mail, Facebook or Google+.
Compare this property to other properties.
Boost this property on search results.


text:
Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central
WildStar News
Old news and updates about WildStar Online.
Page 1 of 20
Thread Display Options
Page 1 of 20


text:
High stakes battle: Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin closes in on the Japanese research vessel Nisshin Maru earlier this year. Photo: Reuters/Sea ShepherdNew Zealand has rejected Japan's claim to be legally whaling in the Antarctic as an attempt to reduce the global whaling treaty to an industry cartel.
Intervening in the International Court of Justice case brought by Australia against Japan on Monday, the NZ Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson, said the treaty's purpose was not the protection of commercial whaling.
Instead Mr Finlayson told the ICJ in The Hague that the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was intended to be for the conservation and development of whale stocks.
Its key article eight on "special permit" scientific whaling, which is being argued before ICJ, did not give carte blanche to any member country to sidestep the rest of the treaty, he said.
Under the article, Japan currently issues its whalers with permits to kill up to 935 minke whales, 50 fin whales, and 50 humpback whales in the Antarctic.
Over 26 years more than 10,000 whales have been killed in the program, including 18 fin whales, but the humpback quota has been suspended.
Japan told the court last week that article eight unambiguously said decision-making power on permits rested with the state party concerned.
Mr Finlayson said Japan had tried to sew together snippets of the article to construct a blanket exemption from other parts of the treaty.
"Far from creating a blanket exemption, the words create an obligation on the contracting government to operate within the words of the convention when issuing a special permit," Mr Finlayson said.
New Zealand counsel's, Penelope Ridings, said countries which chose to issue special permits had obligations to objectively determine the lowest number of whales necessary to kill.
Dr Ridings said "strident unilateralism" by any country issuing a special permit would be contrary to international obligations for meaningful co-operation.
Australia has told the court that Japan's scientific program is commercial whaling cloaked in the "lab coat of science".
Japan replied that Australia was on an alarmist crusade to impose its cultural preferences over the Japanese.
NZ's intervention came in the third week of the hearing, ahead of the appearance of Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on Tuesday as final submissions begin.
Follow the National Times on Twitter
The original release of this article first appeared on the website of Hangzhou Night Net.